How I got a Log, and What It Made Me think

[Kinaed]

So, an interesting thing happened today that I wanted to share with the pbase.

Percival's player (as can be seen from GLs) had quite a few support hits recently, and he asked me if people were hitting his approval ratings multiple times, because he thought each person was limited to hitting his approval once a week. I had a look at the support history and noticed a pattern in there where when Rurik was arrested, that the pbase divided into two camps:

1) The Order can't arrest the Justiciar! and
2) The Order sure can arrest the Justiciar, and further, we think he ought to burn!

At that time, Percival was getting roughly equal support, though slightly more in negatives just because (from my observation) dissatisfied people tend to be squeakier wheels, but the overall view wasn't hugely against him.

However, when Rurik wasn't burned, the pattern shifted to:
1) The Order can't arrest the Justiciar! (no change) and
2) Percival didn't burn the guy we thought he ought to! (ie, the 2nd camp flipped).

Now, instead of the pbase being split, everyone bothering to comment on the issue was against Percival, thus explaining the extent of the disapprovals. This being food for thought about politics or group psychology, I shared this information with Percival.

It got even more interesting.

In response, Percival said to me "But the reason we didn't go ahead with our plans was the sheer OOC pressure and miasma around the issue. It was awful, I just wanted the OOC BS to go away so I could enjoy playing the game again."

And, naturally, I replied, "What? People aren't supposed to be OOCly pressuring other people about their IC actions! That's HORRIBLE! And against the rules! ... Hey, got a log?"

Naturally I got a log. What did I discover? Why did our OOC environment turn poisonous? I'll break it down from my observation of both sides:

1. People were arguing OOCly about what SHOULD happen.

What should happen is impossible to say because of the vast majority of factors that could come into play to determine a future outcome at any time. If we knew what SHOULD happen, we could predict the future (I mean that quite literally). So, regardless of what started a situation, until it's over, variables can affect the outcome. Heck, a million variables already set the situation up. The underlying factors are rarely all known, even the principle architects of a situation, so predicting the future, let alone having an accurate view of the present, is impossible.

Perspectives people have are only valid from the vantage point from which they originate. So the fact that some people were just so dead sure that the Justiciar should burn or should be released was, to me, useless philosophical debate existent only to attempt to modify the IC results by modifying the other side's OOC stance.

Really, the tone of the conversation made it clear that this wasn't a casual philosophical discussion for people, but rather an attempt at persuasive argument. That's okay, to a point... and that point is where people began using the discussion to JUDGE each other and genuinely attempt to change one another's behavior through OOC mechanisms. That's called metagaming, and we all know it's wrong to put OOC duress on people to change their actions.

2. People made personally offensive statements about people who disagreed with them.

"You're just doing this for OOC reasons."
"Reason X that you say you're doing this for is just a lame excuse."
"If you burn them, you're a twink."
"That's a stupid opinion because the theme really works the way I say it does!"
"If you knew what you were doing, you'd do it my way."

These are examples of huge shows of disrespect. Any decent debate about philosophy was immediately lost to people squabbling like children. The atmosphere would have been so much better if we respected the rights of one another have different opinions, weren't threatened by the disagreement of our peers, and treated one another respect even when we don't like one another. Disagreeing with someone is not a good reason to be mean or rude, and doing so shows a lack of self discipline and honor for one's peers.

3. When people encountered OOC disagreement, they wound the situation up rather than chose to wind it down.

There was a distinct "you disrespected me, so I'm going to hit back harder & stronger and PROVE I'm right" rather than turning the other cheek or even redirecting the discussion to IC action. This resulted in a spiraling escalation where the only pressure valve was how much shit either party was willing to take before pulling the plug and walking away. Hopefully only from the situation and not TI itself for awhile.

Now, I believe that people have a right to defend their point of view, but wise people know that other people's opinions aren't really attacks, and that when a fight
passes a certain point of appropriateness, it's just time to stop. (Commands in game exist for this: ignore, block, hear, quiet, whoinvis. When things are heating up OOCly, please avail yourself happily and heartily to these commands!) Otherwise, we should respect one another simply because we're all people working towards a
similar goal - rockin' RP. And rockin' RP doesn't mean always getting along.

4. People seemed to feel like they had something important to lose if they didn't win.

To put this into perspective, if TI shuts down tomorrow, everyone still walks away with their lives and their freedom, all limbs intact, retained friends and maybe even a few interesting memories. It's a game. A certain level of maturity is often required to remember that winning isn't everything when playing a game, it's the play itself that's the point. Kinda like life.

5. Venting

Even for those of us who did not directly argue with people, venting to one another provided fuel for those who were directly arguing with the opposite side. It increased the ability of both sides to escalate (think of it like giving people guns in a fist fight) by stimulating their creative juices and giving them more ideas about how to fight the good fight. Ultimately, however, those viewing the venting from the outside simply got a distaste in their mouth for the behavior.

Venting also dragged people who weren't involved into the situation and made anyone with any empathy feel like they were part of it until they were sucked into the whole dysfunctional series of behaviors above themselves. Basically, misery loves company.

I think it's best for everyone all around if venting is kept out of the environment. Please, when you feel the urge to vent, tell your dog, take a walk, or eat a sandwich. Don't tell all and sundry about how awful someone else is. And please, if you see someone venting, gently identify it with something like "Hey, I can see you're having a hard time, but please don't vent here." (Also, on a side note, there's been a few mishaps where people have vented about staff alts on guild channels and caused a bit of "panties in a bunch", so remember - you never know who is going to see what you vent in text, even if it comes down to people sharing logs.).

Anyway, that's why I think the OOC situation got out of control.

It's sad, because roleplay like that is a huge intrigue and of great benefit to the game. All of those arguments about reasonableness and what the results ought to be should have been held ICly, not OOCly. And personal attacks definitely had no place anywhere in any of the conversations.

[Geras]

There are some things I really disagree with on that first part of the post, but I won't bother addressing as I realize that's not the point of the post...

And I know I gave some people a rougher side of my tongue than I should have, for which I'm sorry.

Venting

think of it like giving people guns in a fist fight

Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Honestly, I think venting is healthy and necessary. If it's on a public channel and that's bothering people on it I think it's fine to ask to have it taken to tells, but if someone is sending tells to someone they disagree with on an IC issue, that's their responsibility IMHO.

[Leech]

Original post cleared. In short, I agree with Kinaed and really hope to never see such a horrible display of OOC metagaming, rage, and disrespect again. You have to remember, it's a game, and some people are going to play it differently.

[Geras]

Yah I probably should have mentioned that I agree with the post too, aside from the places I'm nitpicking.

[Kinaed]

Venting may be cathartic and healthy for a given soul, but it's poison for the atmosphere of a community at large. Sometimes we have to sacrifice our own needs for the benefit of others.

TI is a game. When someone's basically throwing a hissy over Scrabble, it's hard to justify that emotional volatility should be coddled or catered to.

[Geras]

People are going to vent. That's just human nature. Should it be on a public channel? Probably not, and that's a fair point. It's going to happen somewhere though, whether its in tells or on IMs or whatever.

[BingoX]

I didn't see any of this, and I know neither oocly or icly what happened, except for a OOC exchanges on OOC.

That said, I don't think staff can fault players for this: "That's a stupid opinion because the theme really works the way I say it does!"

If there's confusion or disagreement about theme, that's a staff concern. Players, at our best, play individual PCs with idiosyncratic axes to grind. We are the worst possible people to ask to maintain the theme. In fact, half of the fun, for half of the best players, is struggling against the theme.

Second, players have to vent. There are some very specific power dynamics at play on MUDs, and asking players not to vent is counterproductive. Maybe establish a 'vent' channel that only staff and players who actively choose to be on it can see. (I almost always have my OOC channel turned off, but I find that some conversations about the game occur there instead of visnet--meandering conversation that I find helpful--so I had it on for a while.)

Third, if people weren't passionately invested in this game, it'd be a shitty game. It's the highest compliment, to players and staff alike, when other players care this much.

How about this:

1) Establish a command that is 'all ooc communication off'. So I can't see ooc channel, I can't see in-room osays, I can't see tells, I can't see anything. No other player (save staff) can communicate with me oocly.
2) Establish a flag that tells other players I am completely 'ooc-off.' So there's no reason to give me ooc grief; I can't see you.

[Kinaed]

Aww, Bingo, how I love thee...

Seriously, though, if the players didn't all know and love one another to distraction, and have made it clear they'd leave in droves if we took away OOC Channels, I'd have removed OOC Channels long ago. I was around during a time when Tam had removed tells and the who list, and as crazy as it is, it was the best RP I'd ever had in my life, which is why I tend to play with most OOC channels off.

Alas, not everyone is me.

We have some issues with how comms are written, so this might be hard to get into game, but maybe we can manage something. I like the suggestion.

As for venting, I know it's human nature, and I'm not telling anyone to do anything, but I am asking people to acknowledge that venting is part of why an atmosphere can feel/go negative, and when the atmosphere is getting that way, asking them to remember that and start to self regulate for the benefit of everyone. We don't have any rules in game telling people what they can talk about OOCly, though some things are considered rude (if I knew who was a mage and started telling everyone OOCly, for example, that'd be rude as hell, but not a rules violation). So, this post is attempting to regulate anything, but rather is an appeal to people's good sense.

[Geras]

I think Bingo is talking about is talking about a voluntary command to take oneself out of OOC communication.

I wouldn't want osay to be part of that - there are often simple nuts and bolts issues that need to be communicated with RP partners (like I gotta take a whizz so hang on 5 secs before hitting me over the head with that chair), but otherwise I think it's a pretty good idea. Though something in the back of my head is telling me we already have such a command? And didn't it get used during this whole thing?

[Geras]

That probably puts the onus on the wrong person though.

How about this: a policy that if people are being offended or upset by a discussion on a public channel, they have the right to tell people to take that discussion taken to tells. If people refuse they can be dealt with by staff and/or aides, first with a stern warning and second with a temporary nochannel.

And if people are harassing you in tells, talk to an Imm or an Aide or just simply block them.